Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

theaiunderwriter.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 927 posts

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#381

Post by soulofmischief »

awesome_dude wrote: post #325
dcow wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do restaurants work, then? You can’t copyright a recipe. Instructions can’t generally be copyrighted, otherwise someone would own the fastest route from A to B and charge every person who used it. The whole idea of intellectual property gets really weird when you try to pinpoint what exactly is being owned. I do not agree with your conjecture that big corps would win by default. Ask why would people need protecti…

Closed source - when was the last time your restaurant told you what was in, and how to make, your favourite dish? What's in Coca Cola? What are the 11 herbs and spices in Kentucky Fried Chicken? How do I make the sauce in a Big Mac?

> when was the last time your restaurant told you what was in, and how to make, your favourite dish

Today? All the time? I just went into a new local joint today, talked to the owner about adding some vegetarian meals, and we hashed out some ideas in terms of both ingredients and preparation.

As a pescetarian and cook myself, I frequently ask establishments detailed questions about ingredients and preparation

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#382

Post by slg »

dcow wrote: post #364
card_zero wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snow White is not the best example, there are non-Disney versions, like the one with Sigourney Weaver and the one with Chris Hemsworth.

I imagine they're licensed--the original creator or their estate had to be looped in to make them happen, and probably financially benefitted.

I can't explain the exact link, but your repeated and vocal pro-AI stance in this thread feels connected to the way when you got called out for a simple and inconsequential mistake that any of us could make, you immediately doubled down on it all while the truth was a single Google search away.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#383

Post by dragonwriter »

alphan0n wrote: post #375
philistine wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even pirated material If you knowingly use pirated content for any purpose, that's not legal.

Distribution of copyrighted material is prohibited. Reading, watching, listening, etc, it is not. A copyright holders tort is with the infringing distributor, not the end user.

> Distribution of copyrighted material is prohibited.

Copying without distribution is also an exclusive right under copyright -- the one for which the whole area of law is named -- and, as such, prohibited without a license or a specific exception in law.

> Reading, watching, listening, etc, it is not.

To the extent that reading, watching, listening, etc. involves copying, and that copying is neither explicitly licensed nor implicitly licensed by, e.g., a sale of copy where reading, watching, listening, etc., by means that inherently involve such an act of copying is clearly an intended use, is effectively prohibited because of the unauthorized copying involved.

> A copyright holders tort is with the infringing distributor, not the end user.

It is often with both, though the infringing distributor is (1) generally more likely to have ability to pay which makes tort action worth pursuing, (2) generally likely to be involved in more acts subject to liability increasing the tort liability, making tort action more worth pursuing, (3) less likely to be seen as a sympathetic figure by a jury should they invoke their right to a jury trial, (4) likely to be subject to greater liability per offense under the statutory damage alternative, even if the actual damages would be similar were that option pursued instead.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#384

Post by flessner »

Everyone is talking about theft - I get it, but there's a more subtler point being made here.

Current generation of AI models can't think of anything truly new. Everything is simply a blend of prior work. I am not saying that this doesn't have economic value, but it means these AI models are closer to lossy compression algorithms than they are to AGI.

The following quote by Sam Altman from about 5 years ago is interesting.

"We have made a soft promise to investors that once we build this sort-of generally intelligent system, basically we will ask it to figure out a way to generate an investment return."

That's a statement I wouldn't even dream about making today.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#385

Post by jordigh »

> copywritten

This syntactic mistake is driving me nuts in the article is driving me nuts. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the the word means.

It's "copyright". It's about the rights to copy. The past participle is "copyrighted", someone has already claimed the rights to copy it, so you can't also have those rights. The rights belong to someone else. If you remember that copyright is about rights that are exclusive to someone and that you don't have them, then you wouldn't make such a syntax error as "copywritten".

The homophone "copywriting" is about take a sales copy (that is, an ad) and writing it. It's about creating an advertisement. Copywritten means you've gone around to creating an ad. As an eggcorn (a fake etymology created after the fact in order to explain the misspelling or syntax error), I assume it's understood as copying anything, and then writing it down, a sort of eggcornical synonym of "copy-paste".

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#386

Post by jedimastert »

flessner wrote: post #384

Everyone is talking about theft - I get it, but there's a more subtler point being made here. Current generation of AI models can't think of anything truly new. Everything is simply a blend of prior work. I am not saying that this doesn't have economic value, but it means these AI models are closer to lossy compression algorithms than they are to AGI. The following quote by Sam Altman from about 5 years ago is intere…

The problem with generating genuinely new art is it requires "inputs" that aren't art. It's requires life experiences.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#387

Post by dcow »

RHSeeger wrote: post #372
dcow wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An artist is a small manufacturing facility that produces a physical (canvas, print, mp3, etc) product, no? What is different about the production of Micky Mouse cartoons? Why is it normal for industries to compete in manufacturing of physical product, but as soon as you can apply copyright, now you exclusively have rights to control anything that produces a similar result?

It looks like you're being purposefully ridiculous. There is an obvious difference between the two; cost of reproduction. For something with a cost of reproduction near zero (book, music, art, etc), IP restrictions matter. For something like a restaurant, factory, etc; the cost of reproduction is high.

It's not obvious at all! You are citing the only difference that typically comes up. A quesadilla is beyond trivial to reproduce and most people have the ingredients readily available. 3D printers make it trivial to reproduce things that would have been obviously hard to reproduce a few years ago. A book is hard to reproduce if it's not in digital form. Is MIDI a song or a set of instructions? Source code is easy to copy but hard to reproduce. Source code is just a recipe telling a compiler what to do. And we've already established that recipes aren't copyrightable because it was "so obvious" at the time copyright was established that you shouldn't be able to copyright the creative process.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#388

Post by dragonwriter »

kokanee wrote: post #158
mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

The idea of open sourcing everything and nullifying patents would benefit corporations like Disney and OpenAI vastly more than it would benefit the people. The first thing that would happen is that BigCorp would eat up every interesting or useful piece of art, technology, and culture that has ever been created and monetize the life out of it. These legal protections are needed by the people. To the Pirate Party's cre…

> The idea of open sourcing everything and nullifying patents would benefit corporations like Disney and OpenAI vastly more than it would benefit the people.

Disney would be among the largest beneficiaries if the right to train AI models on content was viewed as an exclusive right of the copyright holder; they absolutely do not benefit from AI training being considered fair use.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#389

Post by [deleted] »

ryandrake wrote: post #143
Velorivox wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That does infringe copyright...you're just unlikely to get in trouble for it. You might get a cease and desist if the owner of the IP finds out and can spare a moment for you.

This doesn't make any sense to me. No media is getting copied, unless the drawing is exactly the same as an existing drawing. Shouldn't "copy"right apply to specific, tangible artistic works? I guess I don't understand how the fantasy of "IP" works. What if the drawing is of Indiana Jones but he's carrying a bow and arrow instead of a whip? Is it infringement? What if it's a really bad drawing of Indiana Jones, so ba…

[deleted]

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#390

Post by jMyles »

janalsncm wrote: post #284
jMyles wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why should we require human artists to be held to the same standards as automated software? Isn't this the same question as, "why should we allow general purpose computing?" If the technology of our age is our birthright, don't we have the right to engage whatever mathematics we find inspiring with its aid? > If I draw a picture that in some way resembles Buzz Lightyear I am much less of a threat to Disney than an…

> Isn't this the same question as, "why should we allow general purpose computing?" I don’t think so? It’s not illegal to call random people on your phone, but if you do it millions of times per day with a computer it can be illegal.

It seems to me that harassment is similarly offensive regardless of the degree of automation.

...and it's not obvious that transmitting bytes (within frequency and bandwidth protocols) is ever justly criminal; they are trivial to ignore.

Post reply on HN